HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01. Published in final edited form as: J Marital Fam Ther. 2016 October ; 42(4): 567–583. doi:10.1111/jmft.12178.
Couple Therapy for Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Gunnur Karakurt, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University
Author Manuscript
Kate Whiting, Case Western Reserve University Chantal Van Esch, Case Western Reserve University Shari Bolen, and Case Western Reserve University Joseph Calabrese Case Western Reserve University
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence is a serious public health problem accompanied by substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite its documented impact on health, there is no widely recognized treatment of choice. Some studies indicate that couples suffering from situational violence may benefit from couples therapy, but professionals are cautious to risk the possibility of violent retaliation between partners. After a comprehensive literature search of 1733 citations, this systematic review and meta-analysis compiles the results of six studies to investigate the effectiveness of couple therapy as a treatment for violence. Preliminary data suggest that couples therapy is a viable treatment in select situations.
Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent problem that has serious adverse effects on human wellbeing. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), each year about 4.7 million intimate partner victimizations occur among women in the United States (Black et al., 2010). Data from the same survey indicate that a quarter of women experience severe violence, with 50% suffering physical injury. The consequences of violence on victims’ wellbeing range from acute physical injuries to long term mental and physical health consequences (CDC, 2003; Karakurt, Smith, & Whiting, 2013). Physical injuries due to violence could be mild, but are sometimes severe and even lethal (Campbell, 2002). Studies have indicated that in 2007 alone, over 1600 women died as a result of IPV victimization (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009). Furthermore, costs of IPV to society are extensive. A 2003 estimate calculated the total monetary cost of IPV against women in the United States to be close to $5.8 billion per year, on top of the unquantifiable toll it takes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gunnur Karakurt, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University. Cleveland, OH 44106. [email protected].
Karakurt et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
on individuals’ relationships, communities, quality of life, and well-being (NCIPC, 2003). This does not even include the costs associated with IPV against men.
Author Manuscript
Victims of IPV often exhibit comorbid conditions, including mental health issues like depression/anxiety and suicide attempts, as well as substance abuse, gastrointestinal disorders, and gynecological/pregnancy related issues (Black et al., 2010). There is a serious unmet need in the treatment of IPV, with many programs neglecting the subset of victims/ perpetrators who wish to remain together. Many programs designed to prevent intimate partner violence solely target male offenders (Babcock & La Taillade, 2000) by providing gender-specific group therapy or individual treatments, while domestic violence shelters and other facilities traditionally support only female victims by offering therapy, support groups and educational programs. However, findings on batterer intervention programs indicate that these programs do not work as well as expected (Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1996), with programs often experiencing high dropout rates and sometimes even having unwanted consequences (Babcock & LaTaillade, 2000; Mankowski, Haaken, & Silvergleid, 2002) such as the normalization of aggressive behaviors and antisocial peer influences (Murphy & Meis, 2008; Smith, 2007).
Author Manuscript
As an alternative approach to gender-specific therapy, however, controversy exists about whether couple therapy is appropriate, effective or even safe in treating potentially violent couples (Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990). Clinical trials show that couple therapy functions on a systemic level (individual, couple, societal and intergenerational) and is effective when treating couples with dysfunctional relational patterns (Lam, Fals-Stewart, & Kelley, 2009). The relationship patterns which have shown improvement as a result of couple therapy have involved a myriad of dysfunctional qualities, including communication difficulties (Baucom, Sevier, Eldridge, Doss, & Christensen, 2011; Christensen, Atkins, Yi, Baucom, & George, 2006), conflict management issues (Davidson & Horvath, 1997), sexual problems (Clement & Schmidt, 1983; Dekker & Everaerd, 1983), and relationship complications (Cohen, O’Leary, & Foran, 2010), among other diverse concerns (Monson, Fredman, Macdonald, Pukay-Martin, Resick, & Schnurr, 2012).
Author Manuscript
Despite evidence supporting couple therapy, there has been little research on when this type of treatment is appropriate and advisable. It’s possible that the key to effectively treating couple violence lies in accurately classifying the violence in order to facilitate the prescription of specifically tailored therapies. Gender-specific group therapy (Tolman & Edleson, 1995) is viewed as the standard treatment for IPV, even for couples experiencing situational violence (minor incidents initiated by both men and women), despite high dropout rates (Babcock & LaTaillade, 2000), uncertain efficacy, and emphasis on inherent male fault. Clinicians, case workers and some researchers are concerned that talking about sensitive topics in couple therapy sessions results in increased tension, which in turn creates a risk of intimate partner violence for the victims as well as the worry of a violent retaliation after a session (Adams, 1988; Bograd, 1984; Saunders, 1986). As a result of these concerns, couples therapy is often deemed inappropriate for potentially violent couples and discouraged in the absence of solid findings. However, based on previous empirical evidence and theory there is reason to believe that couple therapy may provide an integral tool for treating situational violence among couples who do not wish to separate. Therefore, the aim
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of couple therapy in reducing violence in relationships.
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Methodology
Author Manuscript
A systematic review and meta-analysis can be described as a method for systematically searching the literature and combining relevant study data from included studies to develop a single conclusion with greater statistical power. This is especially useful when analyzing interventions where there is lack of consensus, controversy, or small sample size (Higgins & Green, 2011). Meta-analysis is the process by which findings of existing studies are combined into an integrative statistical framework. This is particularly useful with interventions focused on IPV, where the numbers in each study are relatively small, limiting the power to detect differences when they do exist. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of couple therapy to better understand the effect of these interventions on IPV and violence recidivism. For this review, we were specifically interested in whether couple therapy can help some couples in reducing violence in their relationships. In this study, systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by following the Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2011). These guidelines describe the process of conducting high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses in detail.
METHODS Identification of Studies
Author Manuscript
A systematic review of the literature is conducted prior to conducting meta-analyses in order to reduce bias in the included studies. Researchers decide on the Populations, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, Time and Settings (PICOTS) prior to the meta-analysis to prevent bias in the process. By identifying the PICOTS before finalizing the search strategy, the search of the literature is consistent across studies. We conducted a systematic review evaluating the effect of couples therapy on violence reduction for adult couples suffering from IPV. We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria using the PICOTS framework as follows: Population: Adult couples who are suffering from couple violence; Intervention: Couple therapy; Comparison: Couple therapy vs individually oriented therapy/or no treatment control; Outcomes: Reduction in violence; Time: Any follow-up period greater than 30 days; Setting: Outpatient.
Author Manuscript
We ran an electronic search in February of 2015 for any articles containing the keywords “violence” and some combination of “couples or couple or marital” with “counseling or therapy or treatment” in PubMed, Ebsco/Host (CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Humanities International Complete, and Women’s Studies International), and Cochrane Library. Since the query systems categorize abuse as a form of violence and nest those results under the broader umbrella of violence results, searching for violence actually identified more studies than searching for abuse and other related terms would have identified. The team consulted a librarian before finalizing our search strategy. A hand search of the references of included articles and references from review articles identified during our electronic search was completed. This enhances the likelihood of identifying all relevant existing studies for
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
inclusion, and makes it possible for other researchers to replicate the search to acquire similar data to test reliability.
Author Manuscript
Two team members first reviewed each of the titles, then the abstracts and finally the full articles. The exclusion criteria were as follows for the title and abstract review phase: no original data, subjects under 18 years of age, no couple’s violence, no couple therapy intervention, follow up less than 30 days after intervention ended, or no relevance to the key question. Discrepancies were decided by a third author. Finally, an article review was completed by two team members. For the full article review, exclusion criteria were expanded to the following: studies that did not use validated measures, articles that were not peer-reviewed (i.e. newspaper articles and dissertations), articles not in English, and articles with no comparison group (such as case studies). Conflicts were again decided through discussion and consensus among team members. We did perform a hand search of references from articles identified by our queries in the systematic review that did not meet our inclusion criteria (generally they were not RCTs) but that were relevant to our investigation to identify additional studies. Unfortunately, all of the studies that seemed promising from this hand search ended up being excluded due to our strict inclusion criteria. We did not search conference abstracts since conference findings often report preliminary results which may change with final publication. We did not hand search specific violence-focused journals since these journals typically reporting on the IPV studies are up to date in the electronic databases.
Author Manuscript
It should be noted that while there may be merits to including unpublished works like dissertations, theses, and conference presentations, these have not undergone the rigors of the peer review process, and we cannot confidently validate their methods and results within the scope of this project. Thus, in an effort to maintain a high level of quality control and ensure that all studies incorporated into this meta-analysis can stand up to the highest levels of scrutiny, we did not feel comfortable including these types of works at this time. Data Collection
Author Manuscript
For each article, two of the team members abstracted the data independently using standardized data abstraction forms for study design, population, intervention, outcomes, and quality. For this study, outcomes that were extracted include violence recidivism, number of sessions, type of treatment, and settings in which the treatment occurred. For continuous outcome measures, such as those provided by the conflict tactics scale (Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy & Sugarman, 1996) (commonly used scale for intimate partner violence research), the mean difference between groups and a measure of dispersion are extracted. If the between-group differences are not reported, the point estimate of the difference is calculated using the mean difference from baseline for each group. If the mean difference from baseline is not reported, available information is used to calculate this from the baseline and final values for each group (Higgins & Green, 2011). If there are no measures of dispersion for the mean difference from baseline for each group, the variance is calculated using the standard deviation of the baseline and final values, assuming a correlation between baseline and final values of 0.5. For dichotomous outcomes such as violence and no violence, the number and percent of events pre- and post- intervention are
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
abstracted. It is common in the literature for studies to report findings differently or occur in different populations, so heterogeneity is tested for to see whether or not the studies are homogenous enough to be pooled together. Data were then entered into MIX for metaanalysis software using Excel platform (Bax, Yu, Ikeda, Tsuruta, & Moons, 2006) and checked for any conflicts. Conflicts were discussed until a consensus was reached.
Author Manuscript
The quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis because sometimes results of metaanalysis are used for recommendations. There are several validated scales that are used to measure quality, depending on the type of study undergoing data abstraction. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells, Sea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch, Losos, & Tugwell, 2010) is appropriate when measuring the quality of non-randomized studies, while observational studies’ quality is often assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012), which can be used for randomized and nonrandomized studies. In this study, the quality of the studies included was measured in two ways. First, we completed the Cochrane Intervention Studies Scale (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012) for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells et al., 2010) for observational studies. Second, two reviewers independently assessed the quantity of studies, study limitations, directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias across the studies using the GRADE criteria to understand any effects that the quality of evidence across studies may have had on our findings (GRADE Working Group, 2004).
Author Manuscript
We abstracted outcomes relating specifically to IPV changes among intervention and control groups. Changes in IPV were characterized by Male-to-Female violence frequency at pretest and follow-up, recording mean and standard deviation values. In instances where both partners reported on the violence level, the higher values were used for analysis, as is consistent with general practice in this area of study. Violence frequency measures varied by study (though adapted from the Conflict Tactic Scale), using either the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (mCTS), Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), or Timeline Follow-Back Interview – Spousal Violence (TLFB-SV). All scales have been peer reviewed for validity. Data Synthesis and Analysis
Author Manuscript
At the article review level, we identified a number of articles which reported on follow-up studies; these were aggregated with the original study. We created a set of detailed evidence tables. We conducted meta-analyses when there were sufficient data (from at least three studies) and studies were sufficiently homogenous with respect to key variables (population characteristics, study duration, and intervention characteristics). For studies having more than one arm, we chose the arm for inclusion that had the intervention most consistent with the other included studies in the meta-analysis. When more than one follow up interval was reported, we used the data from the follow up most similar to the other studies, in this case using a 12 month follow-up. Several of the studies involved multiple intervention groups. For our analysis, we used only one intervention group and one comparison group to reduce variability and to maintain independence of studies as required in a meta-analysis. For the experimental group, we prioritized selecting the interventions that involved individual couple therapy, followed by utilizing data from conjoint group couples therapy when
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
necessary. Since our primary goal is to examine the efficacy of couple therapy as a treatment, we chose to prioritize no-treatment controls as the comparison group, followed when necessary by using individual therapy data and then gender specific group therapy data. This was in an effort to minimize artifacts of comparing couples therapy to other forms of therapy. We evaluated heterogeneity among the studies considered for quantitative pooling with an I-squared statistic and considered an I-squared value > 50% to indicate high statistical heterogeneity (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). Meta-regressions are conducted when there are sufficient data and when studies are sufficiently homogenous with respect to key variables (population characteristics, study duration, and intervention type). The heterogeneity among the studies considered for quantitative pooling is tested using a standard chi-squared test, using a significance level of alpha less than or equal to 0.10. Heterogeneity among studies is also examined with an I-squared statistic, which describes the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than random chance. Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman (2003) consider a value greater than 50% to indicate substantial heterogeneity. The mean difference between groups is pooled using a random-effects model with the DerSimonian and Laird formula if there is substantial heterogeneity (DerSimonian, 1986). Stratified analysis or meta-regression is conducted if results indicate significant heterogeneity. We pooled the mean difference between groups in IPV using a random-effects model to account for any between-study heterogeneity (DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). Data analysis utilized MIX for meta-analysis software (Bax, Yu, Ikeda, Tsuruta, & Moons, 2006). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test (Egger et al., 1997). Study weighting is the inverse variance method; therefore, it takes into account the standard deviation as well as the sample size. Quality of Studies
Author Manuscript
The quality of evidence is the degree to which we can be assured that an estimate of the found effect is valid. The quality of the included studies is measured using validated quality scales. There are several validated scales that are used to measure quality, depending on the type of study undergoing data abstraction. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells, Sea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch, Losos, & Tugwell, 2010) is appropriate when measuring the quality of non-randomized studies, while observational studies’ quality is often assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012), which can be used for randomized and non-randomized studies. Strength of a Recommendation
Author Manuscript
The strength of a recommendation is the degree to which we can be assured that adherence to the recommendation will benefit rather than do harm (GRADE, 2004). In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we follow certain steps to improve judgements in the decision making process on which outcome is critical, and the overall quality of the decisions (randomized clinical trials are the gold standard). All of these judgments, recommendations, and the balance between harm and benefit depend on having a clearly defined question and considering potential outcomes that are likely to be affected. In this study, strength of a recommendation is measured using the GRADE criteria (GRADE, 2004).
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript
Results Identification of Studies After boolean searching PubMed, Ebsco/Host, and Cochrane Library, we initially identified 1733 unique citations (Figure 1). We then systematically screened for relevance, first by title and then by abstract, which left us with 119 full text articles to examine for eligibility. Of these, 108 articles were excluded by at least two reviewers. This left 11 articles to be included in the systematic review. Since several articles were longer follow-ups of the same study, we ended up including a total of 6 studies for our quantitative synthesis. Study Characteristics and Quality
Author Manuscript
The included studies were all randomized control trials conducted in person in the US without any pharmaceutical interventions. Four studies utilized individual couple therapy as the intervention, one study utilized conjoint group therapy, and one study used a combination of both. For the comparison groups, two studies used a no treatment control, two used gender specific individual therapy, and two used gender specific group therapy. (Table 1)
Author Manuscript
All of the studies measure the level of Intimate Partner Violence among couples, usually noting mean and SD of violence frequency. Two studies used the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), one used the Modified Conflict Tactic Scale (mCTS), and three used the Timeline Followback Interview – Spousal Violence (TLFB-SV). All of the studies measured Male-to-Female violence scores (two also recorded frequency of minor male violence and three recorded severe male violence frequency). Five studies reported Female-to-Male violence scores (two of which also recorded frequency of female minor and severe violence), and one study also reported total couple violence frequency. Additionally, two of the studies examined the efficacy of couple therapy for reducing IPV specifically among substance abusing populations.
Author Manuscript
Reporting of demographic data varied across the studies, but all of them provided details regarding average age and racial identification. In the 1998 study conducted by Schlee, Heyman, and O’Leary, the mean age of male partners was 38.4 years and the mean age of female partners was 36.24 years; almost all of the participating couples were Caucasian (~96%), with 2.7% identifying as African American. Of couples who participated in the Stith et al. study (2004), 63% were Caucasian and 25% were African American. Average ages for the male and female partners were 38.3 years and 35.6 years, respectively. In the study conducted by Fals-Stewart and colleagues in 2006, approximately 55% of couples described themselves as Caucasian and 33% described themselves as African American; mean age was 35.92 years for the male partners and 32.41 years for the female partners. The 2002/2009 study conducted by Fals-Stewart and colleagues involved approximately 69% Caucasian couples and 18% African American couples. Male partner mean age was 33.1 years and female partner mean age was 31.8 years. In 2009, Lam et al. conducted a study where the average ages of male and female partners were 34.4 years and 32.95 years, respectively; 63% of the couples identified as Caucasian, while 20% identified as African American. The Bradley et al. studies (2011, 2012, and 2014) involved male partners with an
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 8
Author Manuscript
average age of 35 years and female partners with an average age of 34 years. 83% of the couples identified themselves as Caucasian, and 14.5% identified themselves as African American (it should be noted that in this study, participants could select multiple racial descriptors). Overall, couples who participated in studies included in this meta-analysis had a mean age of 34 years, with approximately 70% of couples identifying themselves as Caucasian and approximately 21% of couples identifying themselves as African American. All of the studies involved heterosexual couples. None of the studies identified any demographic variables as having any correlation with outcome variables.
Author Manuscript
After two reviewers separately assessed the studies included in this meta-analysis, we determined that all were moderate to high quality (Figure 2). Attrition bias seemed to be the most problematic issue overall, as most of the researchers did not provide information about drop-out characteristics. It is unclear if this would have influenced reported results, and thus changed our effect sizes. We encourage future studies to provide as much information as possible about withdrawals in an effort to improve study quality and more accurately and completely represent findings. Descriptive Analysis of Included Studies
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
We provide a brief description of each of the six included studies. In 1998, Schlee, Heyman, and O’Leary conducted a study on violent couples investigating the differences in outcomes between couples who participated in a conjoint group therapy program, Physical Aggressive Couples Treatment (PACT), versus couples who participated in gender specific group therapy. After analyzing the data in 1999 (O’Leary, Neidig, and Heyman) and 2006 (Woodin and O’Leary), both interventions demonstrated violence reduction at follow-up, but the only significant differential effect of treatment type that was identified revealed more improvement on marital adjustment among husbands in conjoint treatment. Predictors of recidivism did not vary by treatment. The results of a 2004 study conducted by Stith, Rosen, McCollum and Thomsen showed benefits of conjoint group therapy over gender specific group therapy for male violence recidivism and aggression levels, but did not identify a similar effect among the participants of individual couple therapy (although both conjoint treatment programs showed lower recidivism rates than gender specific treatment, according to female partner reports at 2 year follow-up). In 2006, Fals-Stewart and colleagues examined the efficacy of couple therapy when treating alcoholic females, and found that participants in behavioral couples therapy (BCT) showed significantly greater improvement in dyadic adjustment than participants in either individual-based treatment (IBT) or PACT, with couples who went through BCT reporting higher dyadic adjustment and reduced partner violence at follow-up. Fals-Stewart and Clinton-Sherrod conducted a similar study in 2009 involving substance abusing men and their partners, comparing IBT with BCT. Participants in BCT reported significantly lower levels of IPV and substance use at followup compared to the IBT group, and treatment assignment appeared to be a significant moderator of the day-to-day relationship between IPV and substance use. In a 2009 pilot study investigating the effects of another form of treatment, Parent Skills with Behavioral Couples Therapy (PSBCT), Lam, Fals-Stewart, and Kelley compared PSBCT to BCT and IBT to assess its effect on parenting, relationship conflict, and substance abuse in family and dyad relationships. They found that BCT showed clinically meaningful effects over IBT for
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript
treating substance use, reducing partner violence, and improving dyadic adjustment. In 2012, Bradley and Gottman implemented the Creating Healthy Relationships Program (CHRP), which is a couple and relationship education program designed to reduce IPV in low income situationally violent couples. Results showed that participation in CHRP is associated with higher rates in attitudes that reflected healthy relationship skills as well as a reduction in IPV for follow up. Meta-analysis of the study data described above has revealed a modest but significant positive effect resulting from the use of couple therapy as a treatment for IPV, as explained next. Meta-Analysis of IPV Reduction
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Our meta-analysis results indicate that intimate partner violence can be significantly reduced through the application of couple therapy when compared to an active comparator or no treatment control (weighted mean difference −0.84; 95% confidence interval of −1.37 to −. 30) (Table 2, Figure 4). Further testing revealed that the studies included in the analysis have low heterogeneity (Figure 4), so are suited to pooling for accurate treatment comparison. Specifically, after evaluating the heterogeneity of the included studies, we determined a Q value of 2.38 (P = .79), with I2 statistic equal to 0.00% (confidence interval 0.00% – 74.62%). Inter-trial variance value t2 was also 0 (confidence interval 0 – 1.75), and the ratio of generalization of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic H equals 1 (confidence interval 1 – 1.99). Thus, overall heterogeneity between studies is deemed to be low. Our data were heavily influenced by a single study due to its large sample size and smaller inter-individual heterogeneity relative to the other studies. However, effect sizes of most of the other studies were similar to this one larger study. A sensitivity analysis where we remove the largest study shows similar effects but loses statistical significance. Given that all effect sizes are in the same direction, we anticipate that further work will likely solidify this early evidence. We decided to keep this study because it passed all of the exclusion criteria, it is relatively high quality, and we used only the follow up data.In short, evidence is classified into four categories: (1) “high” grade (indicating high confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, and further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect); (2) “moderate” grade (indicating moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, but further research could change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and may change the estimate); (3) “low” grade (indicating low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, and further research is likely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and is likely to change the estimate); and (4) “insufficient” grade (indicating evidence is unavailable or the body of evidence has unacceptable deficiencies, precluding reaching a conclusion). According to the GRADE criteria, we determined that the strength of evidence was moderate for this finding due to consistency of study findings, the relative high quality of included studies, the direct measurement of a clinically relevant outcome and precision of the results. After grading the strength of the evidence for couple therapy vs controls, we determined that risk of bias was medium, evidence was consistent and direct but imprecise, the magnitude of effect and SOE were moderate, and no publication bias was detected.
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 10
Author Manuscript
Discussion Previous research has examined the feasibility and effectiveness of couple therapy based treatments for situational couple violence across several studies. In these studies, researchers have conducted couples therapy when working with couples experiencing relationship violence, and have reported differing but promising results. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand and synthesize data from the previous literature on the effectiveness of couple therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to do so. It is hypothesized that by aggregating data from previous studies, it may be possible to provide substantial evidence in support of using couples therapy as a treatment for IPV in certain circumstances. Our data support this view.
Author Manuscript
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we abstracted data from six studies. This was a high quality systematic review, using only moderate to high quality studies. Although our effect sizes were only moderately significant, the analysis of the combined data from these studies provides evidence supporting the idea that couple therapy is a slightly better treatment approach than standard treatments when working with violent couples. This indicates that couple therapy can be an effective way to prevent intimate partner violence in certain situations. However, further research into what couple and relationship characteristics predict greater effectiveness of couple therapy is necessary before the widespread adoption of conjoint therapy as a standard form of treatment is really feasible.
Author Manuscript
According to Johnson and Leone’s (2005) study using data from a large national survey, about 65% of violence in relationships exhibit the characteristics of situational couple violence. Importantly, some couples experiencing situational couple violence may prefer to continue their relationship with a desire to end the violence, enhance the quality of their marital relationship, and successfully parent their children (Stith & McCollum, Rosen, Locke & Goldberg, 2005). Gender specific treatments often operate in accordance with the Duluth Model (Pence & Paymar, 1993), which emphasizes the idea that the male perpetrator is psychologically driven to violent, oppressive, dominant behavior, and must be isolated from the victim. This is not conducive to treating couples who struggle to control their emotions but are committed to remaining together, and may actually deter couples from seeking help. Unfortunately, many social services available to female victims are also contingent on a commitment to leave the relationship. This means that many couples may be unable to access the counseling they need to improve their quality of life as a family, likely resulting in the progression of violence. For these reasons, research into couple therapy as an approved method of treatment for situational couple violence is critical.
Author Manuscript
While there are some other clinicians and researchers who argue that it is better to help these couples in a controlled environment with an experienced facilitator/therapist to guide them through their conflict issues together, rather than leave them on their own when they have already been aggressive towards each other. It is certain that safety precautions should be addressed to protect potential participants. There are a number of interventions cited in the literature for clinicians and researchers to help them address their safety concerns for partners during and in between therapy sessions (Karakurt et al., 2014). However, it is undeniable that certain issues associated with situational couple violence are more
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 11
Author Manuscript
effectively addressed with both partners present, so that the couple can grow stronger attachment bonds and support one another through the process. Summary of Findings This systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of couple therapy in violence recidivism indicates a positive impact of couple therapy. Results of the preliminary metaanalysis with pooled data from 6 studies with 470 participants indicate that couples therapy significantly reduces intimate partner violence by point estimate −.84, z =−3.07, (p
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01. Published in final edited form as: J Marital Fam Ther. 2016 October ; 42(4): 567–583. doi:10.1111/jmft.12178.
Couple Therapy for Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Gunnur Karakurt, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University
Author Manuscript
Kate Whiting, Case Western Reserve University Chantal Van Esch, Case Western Reserve University Shari Bolen, and Case Western Reserve University Joseph Calabrese Case Western Reserve University
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence is a serious public health problem accompanied by substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite its documented impact on health, there is no widely recognized treatment of choice. Some studies indicate that couples suffering from situational violence may benefit from couples therapy, but professionals are cautious to risk the possibility of violent retaliation between partners. After a comprehensive literature search of 1733 citations, this systematic review and meta-analysis compiles the results of six studies to investigate the effectiveness of couple therapy as a treatment for violence. Preliminary data suggest that couples therapy is a viable treatment in select situations.
Author Manuscript
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent problem that has serious adverse effects on human wellbeing. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), each year about 4.7 million intimate partner victimizations occur among women in the United States (Black et al., 2010). Data from the same survey indicate that a quarter of women experience severe violence, with 50% suffering physical injury. The consequences of violence on victims’ wellbeing range from acute physical injuries to long term mental and physical health consequences (CDC, 2003; Karakurt, Smith, & Whiting, 2013). Physical injuries due to violence could be mild, but are sometimes severe and even lethal (Campbell, 2002). Studies have indicated that in 2007 alone, over 1600 women died as a result of IPV victimization (Catalano, Smith, Snyder, & Rand, 2009). Furthermore, costs of IPV to society are extensive. A 2003 estimate calculated the total monetary cost of IPV against women in the United States to be close to $5.8 billion per year, on top of the unquantifiable toll it takes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gunnur Karakurt, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve University. Cleveland, OH 44106. [email protected].
Karakurt et al.
Page 2
Author Manuscript
on individuals’ relationships, communities, quality of life, and well-being (NCIPC, 2003). This does not even include the costs associated with IPV against men.
Author Manuscript
Victims of IPV often exhibit comorbid conditions, including mental health issues like depression/anxiety and suicide attempts, as well as substance abuse, gastrointestinal disorders, and gynecological/pregnancy related issues (Black et al., 2010). There is a serious unmet need in the treatment of IPV, with many programs neglecting the subset of victims/ perpetrators who wish to remain together. Many programs designed to prevent intimate partner violence solely target male offenders (Babcock & La Taillade, 2000) by providing gender-specific group therapy or individual treatments, while domestic violence shelters and other facilities traditionally support only female victims by offering therapy, support groups and educational programs. However, findings on batterer intervention programs indicate that these programs do not work as well as expected (Dobash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1996), with programs often experiencing high dropout rates and sometimes even having unwanted consequences (Babcock & LaTaillade, 2000; Mankowski, Haaken, & Silvergleid, 2002) such as the normalization of aggressive behaviors and antisocial peer influences (Murphy & Meis, 2008; Smith, 2007).
Author Manuscript
As an alternative approach to gender-specific therapy, however, controversy exists about whether couple therapy is appropriate, effective or even safe in treating potentially violent couples (Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990). Clinical trials show that couple therapy functions on a systemic level (individual, couple, societal and intergenerational) and is effective when treating couples with dysfunctional relational patterns (Lam, Fals-Stewart, & Kelley, 2009). The relationship patterns which have shown improvement as a result of couple therapy have involved a myriad of dysfunctional qualities, including communication difficulties (Baucom, Sevier, Eldridge, Doss, & Christensen, 2011; Christensen, Atkins, Yi, Baucom, & George, 2006), conflict management issues (Davidson & Horvath, 1997), sexual problems (Clement & Schmidt, 1983; Dekker & Everaerd, 1983), and relationship complications (Cohen, O’Leary, & Foran, 2010), among other diverse concerns (Monson, Fredman, Macdonald, Pukay-Martin, Resick, & Schnurr, 2012).
Author Manuscript
Despite evidence supporting couple therapy, there has been little research on when this type of treatment is appropriate and advisable. It’s possible that the key to effectively treating couple violence lies in accurately classifying the violence in order to facilitate the prescription of specifically tailored therapies. Gender-specific group therapy (Tolman & Edleson, 1995) is viewed as the standard treatment for IPV, even for couples experiencing situational violence (minor incidents initiated by both men and women), despite high dropout rates (Babcock & LaTaillade, 2000), uncertain efficacy, and emphasis on inherent male fault. Clinicians, case workers and some researchers are concerned that talking about sensitive topics in couple therapy sessions results in increased tension, which in turn creates a risk of intimate partner violence for the victims as well as the worry of a violent retaliation after a session (Adams, 1988; Bograd, 1984; Saunders, 1986). As a result of these concerns, couples therapy is often deemed inappropriate for potentially violent couples and discouraged in the absence of solid findings. However, based on previous empirical evidence and theory there is reason to believe that couple therapy may provide an integral tool for treating situational violence among couples who do not wish to separate. Therefore, the aim
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of couple therapy in reducing violence in relationships.
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Methodology
Author Manuscript
A systematic review and meta-analysis can be described as a method for systematically searching the literature and combining relevant study data from included studies to develop a single conclusion with greater statistical power. This is especially useful when analyzing interventions where there is lack of consensus, controversy, or small sample size (Higgins & Green, 2011). Meta-analysis is the process by which findings of existing studies are combined into an integrative statistical framework. This is particularly useful with interventions focused on IPV, where the numbers in each study are relatively small, limiting the power to detect differences when they do exist. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of couple therapy to better understand the effect of these interventions on IPV and violence recidivism. For this review, we were specifically interested in whether couple therapy can help some couples in reducing violence in their relationships. In this study, systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by following the Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2011). These guidelines describe the process of conducting high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses in detail.
METHODS Identification of Studies
Author Manuscript
A systematic review of the literature is conducted prior to conducting meta-analyses in order to reduce bias in the included studies. Researchers decide on the Populations, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, Time and Settings (PICOTS) prior to the meta-analysis to prevent bias in the process. By identifying the PICOTS before finalizing the search strategy, the search of the literature is consistent across studies. We conducted a systematic review evaluating the effect of couples therapy on violence reduction for adult couples suffering from IPV. We developed inclusion and exclusion criteria using the PICOTS framework as follows: Population: Adult couples who are suffering from couple violence; Intervention: Couple therapy; Comparison: Couple therapy vs individually oriented therapy/or no treatment control; Outcomes: Reduction in violence; Time: Any follow-up period greater than 30 days; Setting: Outpatient.
Author Manuscript
We ran an electronic search in February of 2015 for any articles containing the keywords “violence” and some combination of “couples or couple or marital” with “counseling or therapy or treatment” in PubMed, Ebsco/Host (CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Humanities International Complete, and Women’s Studies International), and Cochrane Library. Since the query systems categorize abuse as a form of violence and nest those results under the broader umbrella of violence results, searching for violence actually identified more studies than searching for abuse and other related terms would have identified. The team consulted a librarian before finalizing our search strategy. A hand search of the references of included articles and references from review articles identified during our electronic search was completed. This enhances the likelihood of identifying all relevant existing studies for
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
inclusion, and makes it possible for other researchers to replicate the search to acquire similar data to test reliability.
Author Manuscript
Two team members first reviewed each of the titles, then the abstracts and finally the full articles. The exclusion criteria were as follows for the title and abstract review phase: no original data, subjects under 18 years of age, no couple’s violence, no couple therapy intervention, follow up less than 30 days after intervention ended, or no relevance to the key question. Discrepancies were decided by a third author. Finally, an article review was completed by two team members. For the full article review, exclusion criteria were expanded to the following: studies that did not use validated measures, articles that were not peer-reviewed (i.e. newspaper articles and dissertations), articles not in English, and articles with no comparison group (such as case studies). Conflicts were again decided through discussion and consensus among team members. We did perform a hand search of references from articles identified by our queries in the systematic review that did not meet our inclusion criteria (generally they were not RCTs) but that were relevant to our investigation to identify additional studies. Unfortunately, all of the studies that seemed promising from this hand search ended up being excluded due to our strict inclusion criteria. We did not search conference abstracts since conference findings often report preliminary results which may change with final publication. We did not hand search specific violence-focused journals since these journals typically reporting on the IPV studies are up to date in the electronic databases.
Author Manuscript
It should be noted that while there may be merits to including unpublished works like dissertations, theses, and conference presentations, these have not undergone the rigors of the peer review process, and we cannot confidently validate their methods and results within the scope of this project. Thus, in an effort to maintain a high level of quality control and ensure that all studies incorporated into this meta-analysis can stand up to the highest levels of scrutiny, we did not feel comfortable including these types of works at this time. Data Collection
Author Manuscript
For each article, two of the team members abstracted the data independently using standardized data abstraction forms for study design, population, intervention, outcomes, and quality. For this study, outcomes that were extracted include violence recidivism, number of sessions, type of treatment, and settings in which the treatment occurred. For continuous outcome measures, such as those provided by the conflict tactics scale (Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy & Sugarman, 1996) (commonly used scale for intimate partner violence research), the mean difference between groups and a measure of dispersion are extracted. If the between-group differences are not reported, the point estimate of the difference is calculated using the mean difference from baseline for each group. If the mean difference from baseline is not reported, available information is used to calculate this from the baseline and final values for each group (Higgins & Green, 2011). If there are no measures of dispersion for the mean difference from baseline for each group, the variance is calculated using the standard deviation of the baseline and final values, assuming a correlation between baseline and final values of 0.5. For dichotomous outcomes such as violence and no violence, the number and percent of events pre- and post- intervention are
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
abstracted. It is common in the literature for studies to report findings differently or occur in different populations, so heterogeneity is tested for to see whether or not the studies are homogenous enough to be pooled together. Data were then entered into MIX for metaanalysis software using Excel platform (Bax, Yu, Ikeda, Tsuruta, & Moons, 2006) and checked for any conflicts. Conflicts were discussed until a consensus was reached.
Author Manuscript
The quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis because sometimes results of metaanalysis are used for recommendations. There are several validated scales that are used to measure quality, depending on the type of study undergoing data abstraction. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells, Sea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch, Losos, & Tugwell, 2010) is appropriate when measuring the quality of non-randomized studies, while observational studies’ quality is often assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012), which can be used for randomized and nonrandomized studies. In this study, the quality of the studies included was measured in two ways. First, we completed the Cochrane Intervention Studies Scale (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012) for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells et al., 2010) for observational studies. Second, two reviewers independently assessed the quantity of studies, study limitations, directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias across the studies using the GRADE criteria to understand any effects that the quality of evidence across studies may have had on our findings (GRADE Working Group, 2004).
Author Manuscript
We abstracted outcomes relating specifically to IPV changes among intervention and control groups. Changes in IPV were characterized by Male-to-Female violence frequency at pretest and follow-up, recording mean and standard deviation values. In instances where both partners reported on the violence level, the higher values were used for analysis, as is consistent with general practice in this area of study. Violence frequency measures varied by study (though adapted from the Conflict Tactic Scale), using either the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (mCTS), Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), or Timeline Follow-Back Interview – Spousal Violence (TLFB-SV). All scales have been peer reviewed for validity. Data Synthesis and Analysis
Author Manuscript
At the article review level, we identified a number of articles which reported on follow-up studies; these were aggregated with the original study. We created a set of detailed evidence tables. We conducted meta-analyses when there were sufficient data (from at least three studies) and studies were sufficiently homogenous with respect to key variables (population characteristics, study duration, and intervention characteristics). For studies having more than one arm, we chose the arm for inclusion that had the intervention most consistent with the other included studies in the meta-analysis. When more than one follow up interval was reported, we used the data from the follow up most similar to the other studies, in this case using a 12 month follow-up. Several of the studies involved multiple intervention groups. For our analysis, we used only one intervention group and one comparison group to reduce variability and to maintain independence of studies as required in a meta-analysis. For the experimental group, we prioritized selecting the interventions that involved individual couple therapy, followed by utilizing data from conjoint group couples therapy when
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
necessary. Since our primary goal is to examine the efficacy of couple therapy as a treatment, we chose to prioritize no-treatment controls as the comparison group, followed when necessary by using individual therapy data and then gender specific group therapy data. This was in an effort to minimize artifacts of comparing couples therapy to other forms of therapy. We evaluated heterogeneity among the studies considered for quantitative pooling with an I-squared statistic and considered an I-squared value > 50% to indicate high statistical heterogeneity (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003). Meta-regressions are conducted when there are sufficient data and when studies are sufficiently homogenous with respect to key variables (population characteristics, study duration, and intervention type). The heterogeneity among the studies considered for quantitative pooling is tested using a standard chi-squared test, using a significance level of alpha less than or equal to 0.10. Heterogeneity among studies is also examined with an I-squared statistic, which describes the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than random chance. Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman (2003) consider a value greater than 50% to indicate substantial heterogeneity. The mean difference between groups is pooled using a random-effects model with the DerSimonian and Laird formula if there is substantial heterogeneity (DerSimonian, 1986). Stratified analysis or meta-regression is conducted if results indicate significant heterogeneity. We pooled the mean difference between groups in IPV using a random-effects model to account for any between-study heterogeneity (DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). Data analysis utilized MIX for meta-analysis software (Bax, Yu, Ikeda, Tsuruta, & Moons, 2006). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s test (Egger et al., 1997). Study weighting is the inverse variance method; therefore, it takes into account the standard deviation as well as the sample size. Quality of Studies
Author Manuscript
The quality of evidence is the degree to which we can be assured that an estimate of the found effect is valid. The quality of the included studies is measured using validated quality scales. There are several validated scales that are used to measure quality, depending on the type of study undergoing data abstraction. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (Wells, Sea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch, Losos, & Tugwell, 2010) is appropriate when measuring the quality of non-randomized studies, while observational studies’ quality is often assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Armijo-Olivo, Stiles, Hagen, Biondo, & Cummings, 2012), which can be used for randomized and non-randomized studies. Strength of a Recommendation
Author Manuscript
The strength of a recommendation is the degree to which we can be assured that adherence to the recommendation will benefit rather than do harm (GRADE, 2004). In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we follow certain steps to improve judgements in the decision making process on which outcome is critical, and the overall quality of the decisions (randomized clinical trials are the gold standard). All of these judgments, recommendations, and the balance between harm and benefit depend on having a clearly defined question and considering potential outcomes that are likely to be affected. In this study, strength of a recommendation is measured using the GRADE criteria (GRADE, 2004).
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript
Results Identification of Studies After boolean searching PubMed, Ebsco/Host, and Cochrane Library, we initially identified 1733 unique citations (Figure 1). We then systematically screened for relevance, first by title and then by abstract, which left us with 119 full text articles to examine for eligibility. Of these, 108 articles were excluded by at least two reviewers. This left 11 articles to be included in the systematic review. Since several articles were longer follow-ups of the same study, we ended up including a total of 6 studies for our quantitative synthesis. Study Characteristics and Quality
Author Manuscript
The included studies were all randomized control trials conducted in person in the US without any pharmaceutical interventions. Four studies utilized individual couple therapy as the intervention, one study utilized conjoint group therapy, and one study used a combination of both. For the comparison groups, two studies used a no treatment control, two used gender specific individual therapy, and two used gender specific group therapy. (Table 1)
Author Manuscript
All of the studies measure the level of Intimate Partner Violence among couples, usually noting mean and SD of violence frequency. Two studies used the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), one used the Modified Conflict Tactic Scale (mCTS), and three used the Timeline Followback Interview – Spousal Violence (TLFB-SV). All of the studies measured Male-to-Female violence scores (two also recorded frequency of minor male violence and three recorded severe male violence frequency). Five studies reported Female-to-Male violence scores (two of which also recorded frequency of female minor and severe violence), and one study also reported total couple violence frequency. Additionally, two of the studies examined the efficacy of couple therapy for reducing IPV specifically among substance abusing populations.
Author Manuscript
Reporting of demographic data varied across the studies, but all of them provided details regarding average age and racial identification. In the 1998 study conducted by Schlee, Heyman, and O’Leary, the mean age of male partners was 38.4 years and the mean age of female partners was 36.24 years; almost all of the participating couples were Caucasian (~96%), with 2.7% identifying as African American. Of couples who participated in the Stith et al. study (2004), 63% were Caucasian and 25% were African American. Average ages for the male and female partners were 38.3 years and 35.6 years, respectively. In the study conducted by Fals-Stewart and colleagues in 2006, approximately 55% of couples described themselves as Caucasian and 33% described themselves as African American; mean age was 35.92 years for the male partners and 32.41 years for the female partners. The 2002/2009 study conducted by Fals-Stewart and colleagues involved approximately 69% Caucasian couples and 18% African American couples. Male partner mean age was 33.1 years and female partner mean age was 31.8 years. In 2009, Lam et al. conducted a study where the average ages of male and female partners were 34.4 years and 32.95 years, respectively; 63% of the couples identified as Caucasian, while 20% identified as African American. The Bradley et al. studies (2011, 2012, and 2014) involved male partners with an
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 8
Author Manuscript
average age of 35 years and female partners with an average age of 34 years. 83% of the couples identified themselves as Caucasian, and 14.5% identified themselves as African American (it should be noted that in this study, participants could select multiple racial descriptors). Overall, couples who participated in studies included in this meta-analysis had a mean age of 34 years, with approximately 70% of couples identifying themselves as Caucasian and approximately 21% of couples identifying themselves as African American. All of the studies involved heterosexual couples. None of the studies identified any demographic variables as having any correlation with outcome variables.
Author Manuscript
After two reviewers separately assessed the studies included in this meta-analysis, we determined that all were moderate to high quality (Figure 2). Attrition bias seemed to be the most problematic issue overall, as most of the researchers did not provide information about drop-out characteristics. It is unclear if this would have influenced reported results, and thus changed our effect sizes. We encourage future studies to provide as much information as possible about withdrawals in an effort to improve study quality and more accurately and completely represent findings. Descriptive Analysis of Included Studies
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
We provide a brief description of each of the six included studies. In 1998, Schlee, Heyman, and O’Leary conducted a study on violent couples investigating the differences in outcomes between couples who participated in a conjoint group therapy program, Physical Aggressive Couples Treatment (PACT), versus couples who participated in gender specific group therapy. After analyzing the data in 1999 (O’Leary, Neidig, and Heyman) and 2006 (Woodin and O’Leary), both interventions demonstrated violence reduction at follow-up, but the only significant differential effect of treatment type that was identified revealed more improvement on marital adjustment among husbands in conjoint treatment. Predictors of recidivism did not vary by treatment. The results of a 2004 study conducted by Stith, Rosen, McCollum and Thomsen showed benefits of conjoint group therapy over gender specific group therapy for male violence recidivism and aggression levels, but did not identify a similar effect among the participants of individual couple therapy (although both conjoint treatment programs showed lower recidivism rates than gender specific treatment, according to female partner reports at 2 year follow-up). In 2006, Fals-Stewart and colleagues examined the efficacy of couple therapy when treating alcoholic females, and found that participants in behavioral couples therapy (BCT) showed significantly greater improvement in dyadic adjustment than participants in either individual-based treatment (IBT) or PACT, with couples who went through BCT reporting higher dyadic adjustment and reduced partner violence at follow-up. Fals-Stewart and Clinton-Sherrod conducted a similar study in 2009 involving substance abusing men and their partners, comparing IBT with BCT. Participants in BCT reported significantly lower levels of IPV and substance use at followup compared to the IBT group, and treatment assignment appeared to be a significant moderator of the day-to-day relationship between IPV and substance use. In a 2009 pilot study investigating the effects of another form of treatment, Parent Skills with Behavioral Couples Therapy (PSBCT), Lam, Fals-Stewart, and Kelley compared PSBCT to BCT and IBT to assess its effect on parenting, relationship conflict, and substance abuse in family and dyad relationships. They found that BCT showed clinically meaningful effects over IBT for
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript
treating substance use, reducing partner violence, and improving dyadic adjustment. In 2012, Bradley and Gottman implemented the Creating Healthy Relationships Program (CHRP), which is a couple and relationship education program designed to reduce IPV in low income situationally violent couples. Results showed that participation in CHRP is associated with higher rates in attitudes that reflected healthy relationship skills as well as a reduction in IPV for follow up. Meta-analysis of the study data described above has revealed a modest but significant positive effect resulting from the use of couple therapy as a treatment for IPV, as explained next. Meta-Analysis of IPV Reduction
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Our meta-analysis results indicate that intimate partner violence can be significantly reduced through the application of couple therapy when compared to an active comparator or no treatment control (weighted mean difference −0.84; 95% confidence interval of −1.37 to −. 30) (Table 2, Figure 4). Further testing revealed that the studies included in the analysis have low heterogeneity (Figure 4), so are suited to pooling for accurate treatment comparison. Specifically, after evaluating the heterogeneity of the included studies, we determined a Q value of 2.38 (P = .79), with I2 statistic equal to 0.00% (confidence interval 0.00% – 74.62%). Inter-trial variance value t2 was also 0 (confidence interval 0 – 1.75), and the ratio of generalization of Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic H equals 1 (confidence interval 1 – 1.99). Thus, overall heterogeneity between studies is deemed to be low. Our data were heavily influenced by a single study due to its large sample size and smaller inter-individual heterogeneity relative to the other studies. However, effect sizes of most of the other studies were similar to this one larger study. A sensitivity analysis where we remove the largest study shows similar effects but loses statistical significance. Given that all effect sizes are in the same direction, we anticipate that further work will likely solidify this early evidence. We decided to keep this study because it passed all of the exclusion criteria, it is relatively high quality, and we used only the follow up data.In short, evidence is classified into four categories: (1) “high” grade (indicating high confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, and further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect); (2) “moderate” grade (indicating moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, but further research could change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and may change the estimate); (3) “low” grade (indicating low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect, and further research is likely to change our confidence in the estimate of the effect and is likely to change the estimate); and (4) “insufficient” grade (indicating evidence is unavailable or the body of evidence has unacceptable deficiencies, precluding reaching a conclusion). According to the GRADE criteria, we determined that the strength of evidence was moderate for this finding due to consistency of study findings, the relative high quality of included studies, the direct measurement of a clinically relevant outcome and precision of the results. After grading the strength of the evidence for couple therapy vs controls, we determined that risk of bias was medium, evidence was consistent and direct but imprecise, the magnitude of effect and SOE were moderate, and no publication bias was detected.
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 10
Author Manuscript
Discussion Previous research has examined the feasibility and effectiveness of couple therapy based treatments for situational couple violence across several studies. In these studies, researchers have conducted couples therapy when working with couples experiencing relationship violence, and have reported differing but promising results. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand and synthesize data from the previous literature on the effectiveness of couple therapy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to do so. It is hypothesized that by aggregating data from previous studies, it may be possible to provide substantial evidence in support of using couples therapy as a treatment for IPV in certain circumstances. Our data support this view.
Author Manuscript
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we abstracted data from six studies. This was a high quality systematic review, using only moderate to high quality studies. Although our effect sizes were only moderately significant, the analysis of the combined data from these studies provides evidence supporting the idea that couple therapy is a slightly better treatment approach than standard treatments when working with violent couples. This indicates that couple therapy can be an effective way to prevent intimate partner violence in certain situations. However, further research into what couple and relationship characteristics predict greater effectiveness of couple therapy is necessary before the widespread adoption of conjoint therapy as a standard form of treatment is really feasible.
Author Manuscript
According to Johnson and Leone’s (2005) study using data from a large national survey, about 65% of violence in relationships exhibit the characteristics of situational couple violence. Importantly, some couples experiencing situational couple violence may prefer to continue their relationship with a desire to end the violence, enhance the quality of their marital relationship, and successfully parent their children (Stith & McCollum, Rosen, Locke & Goldberg, 2005). Gender specific treatments often operate in accordance with the Duluth Model (Pence & Paymar, 1993), which emphasizes the idea that the male perpetrator is psychologically driven to violent, oppressive, dominant behavior, and must be isolated from the victim. This is not conducive to treating couples who struggle to control their emotions but are committed to remaining together, and may actually deter couples from seeking help. Unfortunately, many social services available to female victims are also contingent on a commitment to leave the relationship. This means that many couples may be unable to access the counseling they need to improve their quality of life as a family, likely resulting in the progression of violence. For these reasons, research into couple therapy as an approved method of treatment for situational couple violence is critical.
Author Manuscript
While there are some other clinicians and researchers who argue that it is better to help these couples in a controlled environment with an experienced facilitator/therapist to guide them through their conflict issues together, rather than leave them on their own when they have already been aggressive towards each other. It is certain that safety precautions should be addressed to protect potential participants. There are a number of interventions cited in the literature for clinicians and researchers to help them address their safety concerns for partners during and in between therapy sessions (Karakurt et al., 2014). However, it is undeniable that certain issues associated with situational couple violence are more
J Marital Fam Ther. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 October 01.
Karakurt et al.
Page 11
Author Manuscript
effectively addressed with both partners present, so that the couple can grow stronger attachment bonds and support one another through the process. Summary of Findings This systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of couple therapy in violence recidivism indicates a positive impact of couple therapy. Results of the preliminary metaanalysis with pooled data from 6 studies with 470 participants indicate that couples therapy significantly reduces intimate partner violence by point estimate −.84, z =−3.07, (p
